istanbul evden eve nakliyat
uluslararası evden eve nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
istanbul ev taşıma
istanbul nakliye firması
evden eve nakliyat istanbul
ev eşyası depolama
istanbul depo kiralama
Privacy, Cookies and Terms
Explaining the Paranormal with Physics - Debate with Garrett Moddel
Jack Sarfatti Blog
Published: 18 January 2013
Physicist Funds A Real La...
A private module for the ISS
The Washington Post
More Recent Activity
2 hours ago
Jonathan Vos Post
Tove K. Danovich
3 hours ago
Explaining the Paranormal with Physics - Debate with Garrett Moddel
Stardrive, ISEP, Internet Science Education Project
@JackSarfatti on Twitter
3 hours ago
Explaining the Paranormal with Physics
Mehdi Torabi Goodarzi
Resilient LoBo Tietan
Professor, Electrical, Computer & Energy Engineering
University of Colorado
Quantum Engineering Lab:
On Jan 17, 2013, at 6:17 PM, Garret Moddel wrote:
Thank you for the respect!
The answer is clearly not (1), but that does not mean it is (2). It could be none of the above.
Jack: Again I strongly disagree. You are opting for no-explanation or perhaps a non-scientific supernatural explanation. It's obvious to my mind, and I think to many others that quantum entanglement when supplemented with signal nonlocality beyond orthodox quantum theory has all the properties in a natural way that the evidence demands. Now, ultimately to paraphrase Einstein - the correspondence of theory with experiment depends upon the "free invention of the human imagination" into making a coherent narrative. Either you grok it or you don't. Ultimately it comes down to intuitive judgement I suppose. That one can sense events which have not happened before they happen, but which will happen in a Novikov loop in time makes perfect sense in the coherent narrative (paradigm) of entanglement + signal nonlocality. This idea is Popper falsifiable. Without signal nonlocality the kind of evidence you say you believe could not possibly occur.
The basic no-signal arguments of orthodox quantum theory assert that looking locally at one part B of an entangled system will only show perfectly random noise independent of how one changes the parameter settings (e.g. orientation of a Stern-Gerlach magnet) of a detector of a distantly entangled part A. With signal nonlocality that is no longer the case and a non-random signal can be detected at B's detector depending on the local time sequence of parameter settings for A's detector - without the need for a classical signal key to decrypt the entangled message as in orthodox quantum theory. Moreover, the spatio-temporal separation between the paired detections of A & B do not matter at all. Entanglement is independent of the space-time separation between the irreversible detections of A & B even if A the active sender is in the timelike future of B the passive receiver.
Bottom line, you are happy not to have any explanation rooted in known physical theory. I am not happy with that, given that there is a natural explanation available that only requires a minimal extension of quantum physics analogous to extending special relativity to general relativity, or extending classical mechanics to orthodox quantum mechanics, or re-interpreting classical thermodynamics in terms of kinetic theory of gases and then beyond to classical statistical mechanics.
Garrett: If we had been discussing solutions to the ultraviolet catastrophe in the late 19th century and you offered me (1) classical thermodynamics, or (2) natural radical conservative extensions of orthodox Maxwell equations, that would be too limited a choice. None-of-the-above would have included the Planck distribution and quantum mechanics. We may well be in a similar situation here.
Jack: I think you are making a simple problem more complex. To my mind at least entanglement with signal nonlocality is a perfectly obvious natural explanation and why you cannot see that surprises me.
Garrett: The only way I know of to distinguish whether natural radical conservative extensions of orthodox quantum theory do resolve the issue would be if they provided testable, and falsifiable, predictions that are then tested.
Jack: You have put the cart before the horse. The kinds of evidence you say you believe is precisely what to expect from entanglement + signal nonlocality! Indeed, the ABSENCE of the kind of evidence you say you believe would have been the POPPER FALSIFICATION of the entanglement + signal nonlocality explanation!
Now, in dealing with human subjects of enormous complexity with many variables we cannot control, you can't expect the kind of quantitative comparison of numerical data with equations that we get in Newtonian celestial mechanics or in the radiative corrections to quantum electrodynamics etc. If you are looking for that, you won't get it. However, given the idea that entanglement + signal nonlocality is the mechanism of consciousness itself, one may hope to mimic it in the laboratory with nano-engineering naturally conscious solid-state android brains for example - conscious computers. Such things become thinkable scientifically.
16 minutes ago
BTW in case you are not aware of this:
Subquantum Information and Computation
(Submitted on 11 Mar 2002 (v1), last revised 12 Apr 2002 (this version, v2))
It is argued that immense physical resources - for nonlocal communication, espionage, and exponentially-fast computation - are hidden from us by quantum noise, and that this noise is not fundamental but merely a property of an equilibrium state in which the universe happens to be at the present time. It is suggested that 'non-quantum' or nonequilibrium matter might exist today in the form of relic particles from the early universe. We describe how such matter could be detected and put to practical use. Nonequilibrium matter could be used to send instantaneous signals, to violate the uncertainty principle, to distinguish non-orthogonal quantum states without disturbing them, to eavesdrop on quantum key distribution, and to outpace quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time).
Comments: 10 pages, Latex, no figures. To appear in 'Proceedings of the Second Winter Institute on Foundations of Quantum Theory and Quantum Optics: Quantum Information Processing', ed. R. Ghosh (Indian Academy of Science, Bangalore, 2002). Second version: shortened at editor's request; extra material on outpacing quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time)
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
Journal reference: Pramana - J. Phys. 59 (2002) 269-277
Report number: Imperial/TP/1-02/15
Cite as: arXiv:quant-ph/0203049
(or arXiv:quant-ph/0203049v2 for this version)
3 hours ago
Theoretical model of a purported empirical violation of the predictions of quantum theory
Henry P. Stapp
(Originally published in Physical Review A, Vol.50, No.1, July 1994)
ABSTRACT: A generalization of Weinberg's nonlinear quantum theory is used to model a reported violation of the predictions of orthodox quantum theory.
This work concerns the possibility of causal anomalies. By a causal anomaly I mean a theoretical or empirical situation in which the occurrence or nonoccurrence of an observable event at one time must apparently depend upon a subsequently generated (pseudo) random number, or willful human act.
Considerations of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen  and Bell's-Theorem  type entail  -- if many-world's interpretations are excluded -- the occurrence of causal anomalies on the theoretical level, provided certain predictions of quantum theory are at least approximately valid. However, those anomalies cannot manifest on the empirical level if the quantum predictions hold exactly . On the other hand, slight departures from the exact validity of the quantum predictions  could lead to small but observable causal anomalies .
Empirical causal anomalies have been reported in the past in experiments that appear, at least superficially, to have been conducted in accordance with scientific procedures , and the protocols are becoming ever more stringent . I do not enter into the difficult question of assessing the reliability of these reports. The scientific community generally looks upon them with skepticism. But at least part of this skepticism originates not from specific challenges to the protocols and procedures of the works of, for example, Jahn, Dobyns and Dunne , but from the belief that such results are not compatible with well-established principles of physics, and hence to be excluded on theoretical grounds. However, it turns out that small modifications of the standard quantum principles would allow some of the most impossible sounding of the reported phenomena to be accommodated. According to the report in Ref. , it would appear that in certain experimental situations willfull human acts, selected by pseudorandom numbers generated at one time, can shift, relative to the randomness predicted by normal quantum theory, the timings of radioactive decays that were detected and recorded months earlier on floppy discs, but that were not observed at that time by any human observer. Such an influence of an observer backward in time on atomic events seems completely at odds with physical theory. However, a slight modification of normal quantum theory can accommodate the reported data. In the scientific study of any reported phenomena it is hard to make progress without a theoretical description that ties them in a coherent way into the rest physics.
The purpose of the present work is to construct, on the basis of an extension of Weinberg's nonlinear generalization of quantum theory , a theoretical model that would accommodate causal anomalies of the kind described above. Specifically, the present work shows that the reported phenomena, although incompatible with the main currents of contemporary scientific thought, can be theoretically modeled in a coherent and relatively simple way by combining certain ideas of von Neumann and Pauli abut the interpretation of quantum theory with Weinberg's nonlinear generalization of the quantum formalism.
II. THE THEORETICAL MODEL
To retain the mathematical structure of quantum theory almost intact, I shall exploit the ideas of von Neumann  and Pauli , according to which the von Neumann process number 1 (reduction of the wave packet) is physically associated with the mental process of the observer. It is interesting that two of our most rigorous-minded mathematical physicists should both be inclined to favor an idea that is so contrary to our normal idea of the nature of the physical world. most physicists have, I think, preferred to accept the common-sense idea that the world of macroscopic material properties is factual: e.g., that the Geiger counter either fires or does not fire, independently of whether any observer has witnessed it; and that the mark on the photographic plate is either there or not there, whether anyone observes it or not. Yet it is difficult to reconcile this common-sense intuition with the mathematical formalism of quantum theory. For there is in that structure no natural breakpoint in the chain of events that leads from an atomic event that initiates the chain to the brain event associated with the resulting observational experience. From the perspective of the mathematical physicist the imposition of a breakpoint at any purely physical level is arbitrary and awkward: it would break the close connection between mathematics and the physical world in a way that is mathematically unnatural, and moreover lacks any empirical or scientific justification. From a purely logical perspective it seems preferable to accept the uniformity of nature's link between the mathematical and physical worlds, rather than to inject, without any logical or empirical reason, our notoriously fallible intuitions about the nature of physical reality.
3 hours ago
Following, then, the mathematics, instead of intuition, I shall adopt the assumption that the Schrodinger equation holds uniformly in the physical world. That is, I shall adopt the view that the physical universe, represented by the quantum state of th
e universe, consists merely of a set of tendencies that entail statistical links between mental events.
In fact, this point of view is not incompatible with the Copenhagen interpretation, which, although epistemological rather than ontological in character , rests on the central fact that in science we deal, perforce, with connections between human observations: the rest of science is a theoretical imagery whose connection to reality must remain forever uncertain.
According to this point of view, expressed however in ontological terms, the various possibilities in regard to the detection of a radioactive decay remain in a state of "possibility" or "potentiality," even after the results are recorded on magnetic tape: no reduction of the wave packet occurs until some pertinent mental event occurs.
By adopting this non-common-sense point of view, we shift the problem raised by the reported results from that of accounting for an influence of willful thoughts occurring at one time upon radioactive decays occurring months earlier to the simpler problem of accounting for the biasing of the probabilities for the occurrence of the thoughts themselves, i.e., a biasing relative to the probabilities predicted by orthodox quantum theory. This latter problem is manageable: Weinberg  has devised a nonlinear quantum mechanics that is very similar to quantum theory, but that can produce probabilities that are biased, relative to the probabilities predicted by linear quantum mechanics. Gisin  has already pointed out that Weinberg's theory can lead to causal anomalies.
According to the interpretation of quantum theory adopted here, the mechanical recording of the detection of the products of a radioactive decay generates a separation of the physical world into a collection of superposed "channels" or "branches": the physical world, as represented by the wave function of the universe, divides into a superposition of channels, one for each of the different possible recorded (but unobserved) results. Contrary to common sense the recorded but unobserved numbers remain in a state of superposed "potentia," to use the word of Heisenberg. Later, when the human observer looks at the device, the state of his brain will separate into a superposition of channels corresponding to the various alternative macroscopic possibilities, in the way described by von Neumann . FInally, when thepsychological event of observation occurs, the state of the universe will be reduced by a projection onto those brain states that are singled out by the conscious experience of the observer .
If the probabilities associated with the various alternative possibilities for the brain state are those given by orthodox quantum theory, then there can be no systematic positive bias of the kind reported: the probabilities associated with the alternative possible brain events will necessarily, according to the orthodox theory, as explained by von Neumann, agree with those that were determined earlier from the probabilities of the alternative possible detections of radioactive decays: there could be no biasing of those probabilities due to a subsequent willful intent of an observer. However, a generalization of Weinberg's nonlinear quantum mechanics allows the probabilities for the possible reductions of the state of the brain of the observer to be biased, relative to those predicted by orthodox quantum theory, by features of the state of the brain of the conscious observer. If such a feature were the activity of the brain that is associated with "intent," then the effect of the anomalous term in the Hamiltonian would be to shift the quantum probabilities corresponding to the various alternative possible conscious events toward the possibilities linked to his positive intent.
We turn, therefore, to a description of Weinberg's theory, in the context of the problem of the shifting of the probabilities away from those predicted by orthodox quantum theory, and toward those defined by an "intent" represented by particular features of the state of the brain of the observer.
Weinberg's nonlinear quantum theory is rooted in the fact that the quantum-mchanical equations of motion for a general quantum system are just the classical equations of motion for a very simple kind of classical system, namely a collection of classical simple harmonic oscillators. Thus a natural way to generalize quantum theory is to generalize this simple classical system.
[ technicalities deleted... ]
This example shows that the reported phenomena, although contrary to orthodox ideas about causality, can be model within a Weinberg-type of nonlinear quantum theory if the Hamiltonian functionh(psi,psi*) is allowed to be nonreal.
If there are in nature nonlinear contributions of the kind indicated...then it seems likely that biological systems would develop in such a way as to exploit the biasing action. The biasing states, illustrated in the model by the state |chi>, could become tied, in the course of biological evolution, to biological desiderata, so that the statistical tendencies specified by the basic dynamics would be shifted in a way that would enhance the survival of the organism.
The Weinberg nonlinearities were intially introduced in the present context because of Gisin's result, which showed that these nonlinearities could lead to causal anomalies of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) kind. However, the considerations given above indicate that those nonlinearities alone cannot produce anomalies of the kind reported in Ref. : a nonreal h is apparently needed to obtain an effect of that kind.
Because the nonlinear aspect is not obviously needed, one could try to revert to a linear theory. Yet it is important to recognize that in the modeling of acausal effects one has available the more general nonlinear framework.
If the purported acausal phenomena is a real physical eitect and is explainable in terms of a nonreal h that arises solely in conjunction with nonlinear terms, as in the model given above, then orthodox quantum theory could become simply the linear approximation to a more adequate nonlinear theory.
 A. Einstein, B. Podoisky, and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935).
 J.S. Bell, Physics 1, 195 (1964).
 H.P. Stapp, Phys. Rev. A 47, 847 (1993); 46, 6860 (1992); H.P. Stapp and D. Bedford, Synthese (to be published).
 P. Eberhard, Nuovo Ciniento 46B, 392 (1978).
 S. Weinberg, Ann. Phys.(N.Y.)194,336 (1989).
 N. Gisin, Phys. Lett. A 143, 1 (1990).
 R. Jahn, Y. Dobyns, and B. Dunne, J. Sci. Expl. 5, 205 (1991); B.J. Dunne and R.G. Jahn, ibid. 6, 311 (1992).
 H. Schmidt, J. Parapsychol. 57, 351 (1993).
 J. von Neumann, Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1955), Chap. VI.
 W. Pauli, quoted in Mind, Matter, and Quantum Mechanics (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1993), Chap. 7.
 H.P. Stapp, Am. J. Phys. 40, 1098 (1972).
 H.P. Stapp, Mind, Matter, and Quantum Mechanics (Ref. ).
3 hours ago
Garrett: I don't know of any such predictions and tests for psi phenomena. We've entered the realm of philosophy and may not be able to resolve this for now.
Jack: Start here:
Research papers of interest:
The RetroPsychoKinesis Project
RPKP wishes to thankHelmut Schmidtfor his continuing advice and encouragement, a
s well as the loan of anoise-based true random generator. Thanks also toRoger Nelsonat thePrinceton Engineering Anomalies Research lab,Peter Moorein Theology and Religious Studies (UKC), Sir Robert Bunkum for guidance, s...
18 minutes ago
On Jan 17, 2013, at 3:03 PM, Jack Sarfatti <
I respectfully disagree completely with you. A post-quantum theory for this exists. There are several alternative independently derived natural radical conservative extensions of orthodox quantum theory e.g. Stapp, Valentini, Cramer, myself, et-al that have entanglement signaling. There are only two possible interpretations of the evidence
1) classical electromagnetic OR 2) quantum entanglement supplemented by non-unitary signal nonlocality. If 1) is false, then 2) is true. There is no other alternative if we accept the data as true. If u have a third rational physical alternative, what is it?
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 17, 2013, at 1:25 PM, Garret Moddel wrote:
Those examples are evidence for psi, which I have no argument with. In a number of studies my lab has also found robust evidence for psi and retrocausal effects.
However, to conclude that these are due to quantum entanglement is speculative, and so far unsupported by the evidence. Psi shares characteristics with quantum phenomena and psi does influence quantum states (along with any other statistically fluctuating states). But no quantum theory of psi that I am aware of provides accurate predictions. Until there is a falsifiable (in the Popper sense) theory for psi that incorporates quantum entanglement I will remain skeptical of the connection between the two.
That is the reason that I stated there is a similarity but no direct connection between psi and quantum entanglement.
On Jan 14, 2013, at 1:27 PM, jack <
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 14, 2013, at 11:46 AM, Garret Moddel <
Chris & Jack-
Garrett: My statement was based on the standard interpretation of quantum entanglement, in which correlation is maintained but there cannot be any information transferred between the distant particles.
Jack: Right but the evidence clearly shows that no entanglement signal theorem is empirically wrong in my opinion. This is the debate.
Garrett:I know there are alternative theories, but is there solid evidence of superluminal information transfer in QE? I haven't been following this discussions. It would be great to have evidence that my statement has been shown to be false, because that really would open a lot of doors.
Jack: Theory along lines of Stapp, Weinberg, Josephson, myself, Cramer, Valentini, i.e. radical conservative extension of orthodox qm to include non-unitary nonlinear effects
Evidence: presponse Libet, Radin, Bierman, Bem
Puthoff & Targ SRI
On Jan 12, 2013, at 7:53 PM, JACK SARFATTI <
On Jan 12, 2013, at 6:35 PM, hris W wrote:
Hey Dr. S,
Here is a link to Garret Moddel's interview (I was incorrect about it being a talk). The transcript of the interview is on this page. If you search for ....
Garrett: "There’s a similarity, but there’s no direct connection. For example, quantum entanglement is a phenomenon in which two particles at a distance are inter-related. So if you measure one particle, you affect the other particle, instantly, and as far away as you like."
Jack: I think Moddel is mistaken. It's a direct connection in my opinion provided that electromagnetic communication (both near and far field) can be excluded. Entanglement with Valentini's signal nonlocality is the only remaining explanation assuming good data.
Chris: You will find the context of the statement also at 4:11 in the mp3 recording. The statement is not directly related to Radin's research but to PSI. I'm assuming (I'm not an expert in these areas) that the underlying phenomenon is related. The following URL contains the podcast interview.
Additionally, in case you are interested, I have linked the papers that are related to the Grinberg-Zylberbaum experiment.
Jack: Yes, Fred Alan Wolf & I I knew Jacobo Grinberg in Brazil in 1984. I think he was murdered in Mexico years ago.
// 2005 Paper TL Richards et al...
// 2004 Paper Standish (TL Richards) et al...
// 2003 Paper by Jiri Wackerman (published in Neuroscience Letters)
100. Dr. Garret Moddel Brings Psi Research to University of Colorado Classroom
Professor at University of Colorado's Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering guides students through experiments demonstr
2 minutes ago
3 hours ago
Previous article: Francisco My comments on Jim Woodward's new book on Star Ships #1
Next article: Nonlocality of gravity energy relation to world hologram thermodynamics, Mach's Principle?
© 2023 - 2020 Internet Science Education Project